E.R.
The Rules Change was
this interpretation of the provisions.
intended to remove any possible ambiguity from the wording of the
provision so that a casual reader would be immediately aware of
what it meant. The Change has not affected current practice which remains in line with the Court's interpretation of the provision.
These provisions in fact very rarely
rarely cause any difficulties.
Passengers who have been away for less than 2 years and who are
returning to live here are normally admitted without any further
enquiry and instructions have been issued to Immigration Officers
emphasising that that practice should continue.
It also remains the case that a person who does not qualify under paragraph 58 of the Rules may nevertheless be admitted as a returning resident under paragraph 59 if, for example, he has lived here for most of his life. Moreover a passenger unhappy about being given limited leave to enter can apply after entry for indefinite leave to be restored and would have a right of appeal against refusal. It is of course then necessary for the applicant to remain in the UK long enough for the claim to be considered but we would not expect that to cause any difficulty for those who are genuinely resident here.
Turning now to Mr Au Yeung's case, I understand that he arrived
in the United Kingdom on 12 June 1990. He was asked a few standard questions of the type put to all arriving passengers to establish the basis on which he was seeking admission. He told the Immigration Officer that he intended to visit his sister; that he had 2 weeks leave from his employment as a civil engineer in Hong Kong; and that he had a return ticket. The Immigration Officer accordingly granted Mr Au Yeung leave to enter as a
visitor for six months. In the event he returned to Hong Kong after 8 days here.
Mr Au Yeung has not lived in the United Kingdom since 1980. He said that he was seeking admission only for a short visit and
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.